With the looming decisive second round in the French elections, there is renewed scrutiny on the National Front and its titular head Marine Le Pen.

Networked with various figures ranging from the milieu of Donald Trump to that of Turkish president Erdogan, the National Front and the Le Pens (father Jean-Marie and daughter Marine) are carrying on the fascist tradition in France.

The second of two shows, this program continues our examination of French deep politics, scrutinizing powerful economic and financial arrangements that determined the Franco-German political dynamic throughout most of the twentieth century and, thus far, through the twenty-first as well.

Critical to our understanding is the dynamic of occupying the high ground on both sides of a political divide. This program underscores how this has placed Germany in a key strategic position on both sides of key political struggles: In the pre-World War II era and postwar era as well; In the right-left political divide in French politics; In the struggle between anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim advocates such as the National Front and Muslim-Brotherhood linked elements in the Islamist community.

Key elements of discussion include:

1. Review of Steve Bannon’s ideological fondness for French anti-Semite and Vichy collaborationist Charles Maurras. Maurras’ Action Francaise is a direct antecedent of the National Front. ” . . . . One of the primary progenitors of the party was the Action Française, founded at the end of the 19th century. . . .”

2. Review of the relationship between former president Francois Mitterand (a socialist) and French Holocaust implementer and Vichy police official Rene Bousquet, who was close to Mitterand and helped to finance his campaign and those of other left-wing French politicians. With financial influence in left-wing parties, Germany can help motivate the French left to band together to defeat the French National Front and its anti-EU, anti-NATO ideology. Potential leftists can also be channelled into an anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim position along that of the National Front. ” . . . . . . . The most damning of all charges against Mitterrand and his right wing connections is probably his long lasting friendship with René Bousquet, ex secrétaire général of the Vichy police. . . . In 1974, René Bousquet gave financial help to François Mitterrand for his presidential campaign against Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. In an interview with Pierre Favier et Michel Martin-Roland Mitterrand claimed that he was not the only left wing politician to benefit from Bousquet’s money, as René Bousquet helped finance all the principal left wing politicians from the 1950s to the beginning of the 1970s, including Pierre Mendès France. . . .”

3. Discussion of Francois Mitterand’s primary role in establishing the Euro, as a prerequisite for German reunification (his alleged “fear” of a reunified Germany should be taken with a grain of salt in light of his collaborationist background and relationship with Rene Bousquet: ” . . . . He [Robert Zoellick] explained his understanding of how Europe got its common currency. . . . it was very clear that European monetary union resulted from French-German tensions before unification and was meant to calm Mitterrand’s fears of an all-too-powerful Germany. According to Zoellick, the euro currency is a by-product of German unification. . . . in strategic terms, Germany’s influence has never been greater. As the continent wants to bank on Germany’s AAA rating, Berlin can now effectively dictate fiscal policy to Athens, Lisbon and Rome – perhaps in the future to Paris, too. . .”

4. More about the Euro (launched with the critically important assistance of Francois Mitterand: “. . . . It [the euro] has turned the Germans into the new rulers of Europe. And it has consigned France to be the weaker partner in the Franco-German relationship. . . .”

5. Analysis of the decisive relationship between French steelmakers belonging to the Comite des Forges and their German counterparts and Ruhr coal producers, one of the foundational elements of the Fifth Column that is antecedent to the National Front: ” . . . . The struggle of the interwar period was not simply a clash between French interests on the one side and German interests on the other. During the development of the Ruhr-Lorraine industrial complex, like-minded industrialists in France and Germany had become directors of jointly owned and jointly controlled financial, industrial, and distributing enterprises. In many cases common views on questions of economic organization, labor policy, social legislation, and attitude toward government had been far more important to the industrialists than differences of nationality or citizenship. . . . ”

6. The economic collaboration between French and German oligarchs worked to the advantage of Germany: ” . . . .It is curious to note that only the French appeared to have this conflict between public policy and private activities. On the German side, complete co-ordination seems to have been preserved between national and private interests; between officials of the German Republic and the leaders of German industry and finance. . . .”

7. Exemplifying the operation of the pro-German Fifth Column in the Ruhr-Lorraine industrial complex is the relationship between the De Wendel and Rochling interests: ” . . . . During World War I the De Wendels, the influential French-German banking and industrial family which headed the French wing of the International Steel Cartel through their Comite des Forges and whose members had sat in the parliaments of both France and Germany, were able to keep the French army from destroying industrial plants belonging to the German enterprises of the Rochling family. . . . . . . . The Rochling family, with their powerful complex of coal, iron, steel and banking enterprises in Germany, has for generations played in close harmony with the de Wendel family. . . .”

8. The De Wendel/Rochling links were so profound that the Rochlings were called upon to help build the French defensive Maginot Line: ” . . . . On the other hand, as far as the French steel makers’ association, the Comite des Forges, and in particular the de Wendels who headed the Comite, were concerned, it was business as usual-or in this case, business as unusual-that prevailed. . . . When it came time for France to build its impregnable Maginot Line, who should be called in to supply steel and technical assistance but the German firm of the brothers Rochling. . . .”

9. After the French capitulation, the Vichy government–to no one’s surprise–exonerated the Rochlings: ” . . . . Now comes the outbreak of World War II. The French army marching into the Saar during the ‘phony war’ period in 1939, received orders not to fire on or damage the plants of the ‘war criminals,’ the brothers Rochling. In 1940 came the blitz and the fall of France. The Vichy government passed a decree exonerating the Rochlings and canceling their forty-year prison sentences. . . .”

10. The Franco-German steel cartel, in turn, belonged to an international steel cartel featuring the Thyssen firm Vereinigte Stahlwerke (later Thyssen A.G.). The Thyssen interests are inextricably linked with the Bormann capital network. The Thyssens’ principal American contacts were the Bush family. ” . . . . They marked the formation of the United Steel Works in Germany, as a combination of the four biggest steel producers Ernst Poensgen, Fritz Thyssen, Otto Wolff, and the others who drew this combine together had managed to get over a hundred million dollars from private investors in the United States. Dillon Read & Company, the New York investment house which brought Clarence Dillon, James V. Forrestal, William H. Draper, Jr., and others into prominence, floated the United Steel Works bonds in the United States . . . . ”

11. During the occupation of France, the Franco-German corporate connection yielded further German capital domination of French firms: ” . . . The Third Republic’s business elite was virtually unchanged after 1940. . . . They regarded the war and Hitler as an unfortunate diversion from their chief mission of preventing a communist revolution in France. Antibolshevism was a common denominator linking these Frenchmen to Germans. . . . The upper-class men who had been superbly trained in finance and administration at one of the two grand corps schools were referred to as France’s permanent ‘wall of money,’ and as professionals they came into their own in 1940. They agreed to the establishment of German subsidiary firms in France and permitted a general buy-in to French companies. . . .

12. The Franco-German corporate links and the domination of that relationship by corporate Germany and the Bormann network continued into the postwar period: ” . . . . Society’s natural survivors, French version, who had served the Third Reich as an extension of German industry, would continue to do so in the period of postwar trials, just as they had survived the war, occupation, and liberation. These were many of the French elite, the well-born, the propertied, the titled, the experts, industrialists, businessmen, bureaucrats, bankers. . . . Economic collaboration in France with the Germans had been so widespread (on all levels of society) that there had to be a realization that an entire nation could not be brought to trial. . . .”

13. Corporate German/Bormann control of French commerce and finance is the determining factor in contemporary French affairs: ” . . . . The understandings arrived at in the power structure of France reach back to prewar days, were continued during the occupation, and have carried over to the present time. [New York Times reporter Flora] Lewis, in her report from Paris, commented further: ‘This hidden control of government and corporations has produced a general unease in Paris.’ Along with the unease, the fact that France has lingering and serious social and political ailments is a residue of World War II and of an economic occupation that was never really terminated with the withdrawal of German troops beyond the Rhine. . . .”

14. The Franco-German corporate Axis facilitated the De Wendel family’s postwar assistance of Friedrich Flick, another of Hitler’s top industrialists.: ” . . . . The understandings arrived at in the power structure of France reach back to prewar days, were continued during the occupation, and have carried over to the present time. Lewis, in her report from Paris, commented further: ‘This hidden control of government and corporations has produced a general unease in Paris.’ Along with the unease, the fact that France has lingering and serious social and political ailments is a residue of World War II and of an economic occupation that was never really terminated with the withdrawal of German troops beyond the Rhine. . . .”

15. The seamless incorporation of the Franco-German corporate axis into the German-dominated EU and EMU has yielded the ability of the Federal Republic to interfere in the French political process: ” . . . . Like Fillon, Macron is considered ‘Germany-compatible’ by a German think tank, whereas all other candidates are viewed as unsuitable for ‘constructive cooperation’ because of their criticism of the EU and/or of NATO. Recently, Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble ostentatiously recommended voting for Macron. Berlin’s interference on behalf of Macron shows once again that German domination of the EU does not stop at national borders, and – according to a well-known EU observer – surpasses by far Russia’s feeble meddling in France. . . .”

The program concludes with rumination about the role of anti-Muslim sentiment in the French and U.S. political process and the presence of Underground Reich-linked elements on both the “anti-immigrant” side and the Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood side.

Program Highlights Include:

1. Review of the Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood Turkish Refah Party (the direct antecedent of Erdogan’s AKP) and its relationship to Ahmed Huber of the Bank Al-Taqwa.

2. Review of the role of Ahmed Huber (later of the Bank Al-Taqwa) in introducing Turkish Muslim Brotherhood’s Necmettin Erbakan with Marine Le Pen’s father: ” . . . . . . . . A second photograph, in which Hitler is talking with Himmler, hangs next to those of Necmettin Erbakan and Jean-Marie Le Pen [leader of the fascist National Front]. Erbakan, head of the Turkish Islamist party, Refah, turned to Achmed Huber for an introduction to the chief of the French party of the far right. Exiting from the meeting . . . . Huber’s two friends supposedly stated that they ‘share the same view of the world’ and expressed ‘their common desire to work together to remove the last racist obstacles that still prevent the union of the Islamist movement with the national right of Europe.’. . .”

3. Review of The Camp of the Saints, a racist, anti-immigrant book valued both by French National Front types and Trump advisor Steve Bannon.

Against the background of Trumpian political volatility made manifest in Syria, we look at St. Bernard [Sanders] and the implications of actions he has taken. This program is presented in the context of the “shock to the system” that Steve Bannon and other Trump advisers see as necessary and imminent.

After detailing more about the Hungarian fascist manifestations of Sebastian Gorka, the Trump administration’s point man for counter-jihadism, the program turns to the possible use of the Sanders campaign as a vehicle for the GOP to infiltrate and/or maneuver jihadist elements into prominence in the Democratic Party.

In numerous programs, we have noted the suppression of Operation Green Quest, which targeted individuals and institutions linked to the Al-Taqwa/Muslim Brotherhood milieu on the one hand, and to the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist-generated Islamic Free Market Institute on the other. Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Graham E. Fuller, the Muslim Brotherhood’s and jihadis’ most significant backer in the intelligence community, factor into this analysis:

1. Rove financed Sanders campaign through the American Crossroads super-PAC. ” . . . American Crossroads—founded by former Bush adviser Karl Rove—and several other conservative-backed super PACs have spent the last month intentionally fueling the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weaken Hillary Clinton, whom they still see as the likely Democratic nominee and harder to defeat in the general election. . . . Crossroads is one of several groups that has released ads that have been aimed at branding Sanders as the only true progressive in the race—a strategy the Vermont senator’s campaign also embraces. . . .”

2. Graham E. Fuller says that he was ” . . . . galvanized at watching the spectacle of Bernie Sanders proclaiming issues in his campaign that had been virtually off limits for political discussion for decades: gap between rich and poor, rapacious international trade deals, a fair wage, free university education, the call for US balance (gasp!) in handling the Arab-Israeli, issue, etc. The great thing about Bernie — even if he probably won’t get nominated — is that he has pushed hawkish, friend-of-Wall-Street Hillary to the left. . . .”

3. Fuller’s actual views are the opposite of Sanders policy points: “. . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jihadi form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-economic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon enemy to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller. . . ‘There is no main­stream Islamic organization…with rad­i­cal social views,’ he wrote. ‘Clas­si­cal Islamic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully objected to social­ism and communism….Islam has never had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is unevenly dis­trib­uted.’ . . . .”

4. Faisal Gill, a former operations director for Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute and official with George W. Bush’s Department of Homeland Security is now the head of Vermont’s Democratic Party, a post he has used to join Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to promote Keith Ellison as head of the Democratic National Committee. Ellison is now the deputy chair of the DNC, the post formerly held by Gabbard. ” . . . . Yet some officials remain concerned that Gill apparently enjoys the political protection of Norquist, the architect of the 1994 Republican election sweep that brought Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich to power as House speaker. Norquist speaks of ‘crushing’ his political opponents and dismisses those who don’t agree with his anti-tax, anti-government agenda as ‘Bolsheviks.’ His power derives from a formidable coalition of evangelical, business and other conservative groups that he controls to push favored GOP issues, as well as from his close relationship with White House political chief Karl Rove. . . .”

The program also notes a number of other things about the Sanders campaign:

1. He was promoting open primaries for the Democratic Party, which would enable Karl Rove and the Republicans to choose the Democratic nominee.

2. Sanders was a Presidential elector for the Socialist Workers Party, embracing a stance which would have made him terminally vulnerable had he gotten the Democratic nomination. ” . . . . In 1980, Sanders served as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party, which was founded on the principles of Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Times, that party called for abolishing the military budget. It also called for “solidarity” with the revolutionary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba; this was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis. . . .”

3. The SWP was a vehicle for infiltration and the acquisition of a “left cover” by Nazis and spooks, including Lee Harvey Oswald.

4. The Third Reich saw Leon Trotsky’s methodology as worthy of emulation. (The SWP is a Trotskyite political party.) ” . . . . ‘You should read his books,’ he [Hitler] barked. ‘We can learn a lot from him.’ . . .”

5. To what extent have the GOP and the overlapping Underground Reich focused on Sanders (without his knowledge) as a vehicle for infiltrating the Democratic Party? In FTR #’s 941, 942 and 945, we noted the numerous fascist connections of Tulsi Gabbard, one of the driving forces behind Sanders’ ascent. To what extent has the Trotskyite template served as a vehicle for Gabbard, and, perhaps, Ellison to infiltrate the Democratic Party?

Continuing analysis and discussion from FTR #891, we further explore the CIA-generated background and funding of the “privacy” advocates who comprise much of “Team Snowden.” Recall that Snowden himself was with CIA when he chose to double on NSA. We begin by reviewing our scrutiny of Edward Snowden from the perspective of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, the Air Force “Focal Point Officer” who developed a CIA-controlled network inside of the branches of the military and other agencies of the federal government. This “focal point” network constituted a “secret government within a government” that appears to exist to this day. Next, we set forth the evolution of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Radio Free Asia, the parent organizations of the Open Technology Fund. The OTF has capitalized much of the encrypted “anti-surveillance” technology that has been developed. “Team Snowden,” in turn, has evolved from this milieu. In our past discussions of the assassination of President Kennedy, we have noted that the very same covert action networks used to overthrow and eliminate governments and individuals deemed hostile to U.S. interests were ultimately deployed against Americans and even the United States itself. “Regime change” and destabilization came home. In a similar fashion, it is our considered opinion that a CIA-derived technology milieu developed to assist and effect “ops” abroad was used to destabilize the Obama administration through the Snowden “op.” ” . . . Read­ers might find it odd that a US gov­ern­ment agency estab­lished as a way to laun­der the image of var­i­ous shady pro­pa­ganda out­fits (more on that soon) is now keen to fund tech­nolo­gies designed to pro­tect us from the US gov­ern­ment. More­over, it might seem curi­ous that its money would be so warmly wel­comed by some of the Internet’s fiercest antigov­ern­ment activists. . . . . You’d think that anti-surveillance activists like Chris Soghoian, Jacob Appel­baum, Cory Doc­torow and Jil­lian York would be staunchly against out­fits like BBG and Radio Free Asia, and the role they have played — and con­tinue to play — in work­ing with defense and cor­po­rate inter­ests to project and impose U.S. power abroad. Instead, these rad­i­cal activists have know­ingly joined the club, and in doing so, have become will­ing pitch­men for a wing of the very same U.S. National Secu­rity State they so adamantly oppose. . . .” Program Highlights Include: The controversy over WhatsApp’s encryption technology; the development of WhatsApp’s encryption technology by the CIA-derived Open Technology Fund; FBI Director James Comey’s support for Mitt Romney in 2012; the apparent role of Comey in destabilizing the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Happily recovered from major heart surgery, heroic investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker rejoins our airwaves to recount some of his investigations, old and new. We begin with Daniel’s reportage on Jeb Bush’s role in covering up the milieu of Huffman Aviation and Mohamed Atta’s activities in South Florida. Daniel’s investigations into intelligence-community-connected drug smuggling began with his investigation into Barry Seal. Seal’s involvement with spook activities apparently began with his membership in a Civil Air Patrol unit commanded by CIA officer David Ferrie, a unit that included Lee Harvey Oswald. Much of the program was spent highlighting some of Daniel’s overlapping stories about the intelligence community and the drug traffic. Program highlights include: the role of H.L. Hunt’s granddaughter in the activities surrounding what Daniel terms “Cocaine One;” the heroism of several Mexican women who are telling the truth about the involvement of the Mexican government with the cartels; the bust of a major drug smuggling flight on property owned by socialite Paris Hilton; a constellation of apparent drug smuggling activities surrounding actor Vince Vaughn’s mother.

Many of the same elements that figured in the failed investigation into the 9/11 attacks crop up in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, as well. In addition to intelligence elements linked to the GOP/Petroleum/Underground Reich element of the intelligence community, there are indications that the accused bombers may have been indoctrinated with domestic fascist ideology. An apparent terrorist attack on a PG & E power subsation at the same time may indicate that the “leaderless resistance” strategy is being manifested here.

Early 20th century Robber Barons embraced totalitarian systems; “Good for Business”; fascism, the Axis powers, World War II, and 9/11 result from this; Obama governing from the center and taking heat for it.

Comment: Threats against democratic legislators have become commonplace during the course of the Obama administration. It should not come as a surprise that a party that enthusiastically incorporated Nazi war crminals and Muslim Brotherhood jihadists and terrorists into its ranks would tacitly encourage such practices. In lectures we have examined the paramilitary right as an […]

Comment: Yearning for the pre-New Deal days, GOP spokesmen have been characterizing unemployment insurance as being bad for the economy, because it discourages people from seeking work! “Political Animal: GOP Still Doesn’t Like Unemployed” by Steve Benen; Washington Monthly; 3/8/2010. It’s astounding, but in the midst of an unemployment crisis, prominent Republicans continue to castigate […]